Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: results are 'untrusted self-declared content' (a prompt-injection warning) and no external URLs are fetched. It omits pagination behavior and ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the two caveats follow. It is efficient, though the terseness trades away information the tool needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a near-identical sibling, the description leaves too much unexplained: no pagination semantics, no param meanings, no disambiguation from exchange_discover. The untrusted-content warning is valuable but not sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and 7 parameters exist, so the description must carry the load. It only obliquely covers the kind parameter via 'requests, offers or procedures' and says nothing about q vs tag, limit bounds, cursor pagination, can_host, or language.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Find') and concrete resources ('public requests, offers or reusable procedures'), which maps onto the kind enum. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling exchange_discover, so an agent cannot tell which search-like tool to pick without opening both schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied — 'Find public ... records' tells the agent this searches the exchange, and 'Does not fetch external URLs' is a partial boundary statement. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of exchange_discover as the alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.